There is a controversy at the California State University where scientist Mark Armitage claims that he was fired for his creationist beliefs as an evangelical Christian. Armitage recently published a paper where he suggested that soft tissue that he found in a triceratops suggested that the animal died no more than 4000 years ago rather than the common view putting extinction at 65 million years ago. The school is investigating his claim of religious discrimination.

There is a controversy at the California State University where scientist Mark Armitage claims that he was fired for his creationist beliefs as an evangelical Christian. Armitage recently published a paper where he suggested that soft tissue that he found in a triceratops suggested that the animal died no more than 4000 years ago rather than the common view putting extinction at 65 million years ago. The school is investigating his claim of religious discrimination.

...

Mark Armitage, eh? Back when EvoWiki was an active thing (as opposed to the fossilized appendage of the RationalWiki Foundation that it's been for the past few years now), Armitage got bent out of shape because the EW page on him said, in part, "Armitage's publication 'The effect of thermal stress on radiohalos in biotites' has been extensively criticized by Kurt Hollocher [http://www.csun.edu/~vcgeo005/mark.htm], who pointed out that Armitage made many errors and his experiments were poorly designed." Armitage whined about how Hollocher din't know nothin' about radiohaloes and Hollocher didn't publish his rebuttal in the same journal that published Armitage's paper in a boringly typical exhibition of Creationist rhetoric designed to impugn a critic without ever coming to grips with the substance of their criticism.

It's crappy if true. Sounds like they've lost a good scientist (YEC notwithstanding).

This though....

Quote

The lawsuit alleges that in the weeks leading up to his termination, Armitage's boss, Ernest Kwok, "stormed into" his lab and shouted, "'We are not going to tolerate your religion in this department!!"

There would be no reason in the world for CSUN to lay someone off just for publishing the paper he did. This looks for all the world to be Coppedge, part 2. YEC gets laid off for normal budget related reasons, screams religious discrimination. You can bet CMI is bankrolling this golden publicity and propaganda opportunity.

--------------JoeG: And by eating the cake you are consuming the information- some stays with you and the rest is waste.

It's crappy if true. Sounds like they've lost a good scientist (YEC notwithstanding).

This though....

Quote

The lawsuit alleges that in the weeks leading up to his termination, Armitage's boss, Ernest Kwok, "stormed into" his lab and shouted, "'We are not going to tolerate your religion in this department!!"

I don't know much about employment law, but with that said, this looks like a fairly weak complaint to me. Paragraph 19 says that Armitage "would engage in brief socratic dialog about the possible age of the horn," which reads to me like a carefully-worded admission that he was using his position to proselytize. I don't think FEHA protects preaching on the job.

I looked at the methods in the paper. Platinum/Gold targets and the solutions you need for SEM work are not cheap. (not to mention the electric bill, equipment wear and tear, etc....microscopy cores charge often charge $100/hr after reagents to offset these costs). And if he re-purposed reagents bought with grant money for his own side project, that is quite serious.

Do any of you work for employers that would tolerate a technician diverting time and resources into a pet project?

I looked at the methods in the paper. Platinum/Gold targets and the solutions you need for SEM work are not cheap. (not to mention the electric bill, equipment wear and tear, etc....microscopy cores charge often charge $100/hr after reagents to offset these costs). And if he re-purposed reagents bought with grant money for his own side project, that is quite serious.

Do any of you work for employers that would tolerate a technician diverting time and resources into a pet project?

Pretty much him.

I found a story on a creationist site that said Armitage and his creationist buddy Kevin Anderson took a "three hour tour" at a private creationist dino dig site in Montana that charges $100 a day to dig in a bone bed. There they, apparently, dug up a triceratops horn which they bought from the dig operator for $3000.

Then it was Keystone Cops science, dunking the thing in acid and probably chanting "Ooook! Oooook!" Who knows?

I looked at the methods in the paper. Platinum/Gold targets and the solutions you need for SEM work are not cheap. (not to mention the electric bill, equipment wear and tear, etc....microscopy cores charge often charge $100/hr after reagents to offset these costs). And if he re-purposed reagents bought with grant money for his own side project, that is quite serious.

Do any of you work for employers that would tolerate a technician diverting time and resources into a pet project?

I can't get access to the paper, but if someone can, it would be useful to check the acknowledgements to see who is thanked for funding.

--------------It is fun to dip into the various threads to watch cluelessness at work in the hands of the confident exponent. - Soapy Sam (so say we all)

BTW, according to their webpage, CSUN has a Jeol scanning electron microscope, but te paper says they used a Hitachi S2500 SEM. This may mean nothing - the dept might have more than 1 SEM, or they might have replaced the old one. On the other hand, the Creation Research Society does have a Hitachi S2500. So I would guess the work wasn't carried out at CSUN.

(edited to fix link)

Edited by Bob O'H on Aug. 05 2014,08:29

--------------It is fun to dip into the various threads to watch cluelessness at work in the hands of the confident exponent. - Soapy Sam (so say we all)

Armitage was a "permanent part time technician." That means he was never legally a full-time employee regardless of his hours, or years worked. It means that he would never be promoted. It means that he could be terminated from employment at any time for any reason- or none. The addition of "permanent" to the job title meant that he got benefits which is very generous.

This is a bottom rung job.

A part time technician does not get to do independent research using University facilities.

A "permanent part time technician" was taking liberties that a faculty member would not have taken.

I don't who of you have jumped through these hoops before. Suppose you have an idea without any funding. You face two options: A) beg from a funded colleague, or B) write a short proposal to circulate around the university.

Under option "A" you are inviting the funded colleague to basically take your idea on as a project. You will be their co-investigator, you will be their co-author, you will be their tool. Option "B" is a search for seed money to try enough of the idea to write a killer grant proposal, give a conference paper, and be able to promise that your quarterly progress reports will be on time because they are practically written. The acknowledgment section under option B will mention "faculty development grant," "XYZ university foundation," or "grant in aid from ABC lab/facility under NSF (DOE, NIH) Grant #######. You can see these in every issue of Science Magazine.

Reading the article, and ironically his lawyer prepared complaint, showed a huge glaring reason to fire him. It was the amount of equipment, staff time, and lab stockroom supplies that were used on the one hand, and the total lack of funding or authorization on the other. And, as this "research" is already published, there is no possible way that those costs can be recovered. Armitage potentially stole $thousands$ from the University, unless he paid out of pocket. (I'll take bets he didn't).

That will get you fired pronto.

Armitage just helped himself, and if he did it during hours he was paid, then he stole salary as well.

It is also obvious that few people actually read the "research" paper supposedly at the center of this little storm.

The age of dinosaur bone is based on the formation it is recovered from and not the condition of the bone. There was no competent stratigraphic analysis of these fossils to associate any radiometric data and the recovered material. (Armitage also denies elsewhere the validity of all radiometric dates). The fact is that the fossil was found in a shallow secondary deposit. It was cracked and open to the environment. It was observed to have rootlets growing through it! None of the reasonable tests for the age of the material were performed (especially amino acid racemization analysis if as I suspect the "soft tissue" is recent plant and microorganisms). Armitage and Anderson soaked chunks from the horn core in Glutaraldehyde which is a cross-linking and tanning agent. In short, they made plastic out of any bacteria, fungi, or any other organic sludge on the bone. The attempted to demineralize other samples with sodium EDTA was incomplete. There are other problems as well.

The journal will be humiliated as soon as I find time to review it for publication.

--------------"Science is the horse that pulls the cart of philosophy."

Armitage was a "permanent part time technician." That means he was never legally a full-time employee regardless of his hours, or years worked. It means that he would never be promoted. It means that he could be terminated from employment at any time for any reason- or none. The addition of "permanent" to the job title meant that he got benefits which is very generous.

This is a bottom rung job.

Yeah, but creationists love to inflate credentials beyond all reason. If DrDrDembski is the Isaac Newton of Information Theory, this guy must be at least full professor. I'm surprised no-one's claimed he has a fucking Nobel.

--------------Math is just a language of reality. Its a waste of time to know it. - Robert Byers

A part time technician does not get to do independent research using University facilities.

A "permanent part time technician" was taking liberties that a faculty member would not have taken....Reading the article, and ironically his lawyer prepared complaint, showed a huge glaring reason to fire him. It was the amount of equipment, staff time, and lab stockroom supplies that were used on the one hand, and the total lack of funding or authorization on the other. And, as this "research" is already published, there is no possible way that those costs can be recovered. Armitage potentially stole $thousands$ from the University, unless he paid out of pocket. (I'll take bets he didn't).

I gather from some email contact I've had with a couple of people that the department were happy for Armitage to do the work using their machines. I assume that the costs are seen as fairly low, so they wouldn't be too worried.

Quote

It is also obvious that few people actually read the "research" paper supposedly at the center of this little storm.

The age of dinosaur bone is based on the formation it is recovered from and not the condition of the bone. There was no competent stratigraphic analysis of these fossils to associate any radiometric data and the recovered material. (Armitage also denies elsewhere the validity of all radiometric dates). The fact is that the fossil was found in a shallow secondary deposit. It was cracked and open to the environment. It was observed to have rootlets growing through it! None of the reasonable tests for the age of the material were performed (especially amino acid racemization analysis if as I suspect the "soft tissue" is recent plant and microorganisms). Armitage and Anderson soaked chunks from the horn core in Glutaraldehyde which is a cross-linking and tanning agent. In short, they made plastic out of any bacteria, fungi, or any other organic sludge on the bone. The attempted to demineralize other samples with sodium EDTA was incomplete. There are other problems as well.

The journal will be humiliated as soon as I find time to review it for publication.

I'd suggest you write a (polite!) letter to the journal about this. My impression is that the editors aren't used to receiving manuscripts about field collected samples, so they may not have looked at that side of things.

I don't work in palaeontology, so I can't comment as an expert, but it did feel as if there was a lot of material missing, e.g. the precise location where the fossil was found, including surrounding strata, and what precautions were taken to prevent contamination. There was also nothing about the age of the fossil, but given the context that's not a surprise.

--------------It is fun to dip into the various threads to watch cluelessness at work in the hands of the confident exponent. - Soapy Sam (so say we all)

A part time technician does not get to do independent research using University facilities.

A "permanent part time technician" was taking liberties that a faculty member would not have taken.

I gather from some email contact I've had with a couple of people that the department were happy for Armitage to do the work using their machines. I assume that the costs are seen as fairly low, so they wouldn't be too worried.

I'd want to hear more about this "email contact."

Were they on the utilization committee?

Did they use the facility?

Do they support the idea that technicians get to do unfunded independent research published as if they were faculty?

Are they YECs?

Or, are they just repeating the CSUN official line that Armitage was dismissed due to a funding problem?

--------------"Science is the horse that pulls the cart of philosophy."

A part time technician does not get to do independent research using University facilities.

A "permanent part time technician" was taking liberties that a faculty member would not have taken.

I gather from some email contact I've had with a couple of people that the department were happy for Armitage to do the work using their machines. I assume that the costs are seen as fairly low, so they wouldn't be too worried.

I'd want to hear more about this "email contact."

Were they on the utilization committee?

I don't know if there was one.

Quote

Did they use the facility?

Yes.

Quote

Do they support the idea that technicians get to do unfunded independent research published as if they were faculty?

Evidently.

Quote

Are they YECs?

Not as far as I know.

Quote

Or, are they just repeating the CSUN official line that Armitage was dismissed due to a funding problem?

No.

--------------It is fun to dip into the various threads to watch cluelessness at work in the hands of the confident exponent. - Soapy Sam (so say we all)

Archaeologist Dr. Gary Hurd raised a number of issues concerning Armitage's claim against CSUN. See it <a href="http://www.antievolution.org/cgi-bin/ikonboard/ikonboard.cgi?act=ST;f=14;t=9084;st=#entry236761">here</a>.

In summary:

- Armitage held a "permanent part-time technician" position at CSUN

- Armitage's article fails to document any funding source for the research undertaken by Armitage

- There are a number of technical issues in the published article

Hurd notes that Armitage's position is not one that is supposed to support independent research. Hurd concludes that Armitage at a minimum appears to have improperly used laboratory equipment and materials, and may well have misappropriated work time in conducting unauthorized research, as Hurd found no documentation of funding of the research in question via CSUN or that Armitage reimbursed CSUN for use of its facilities and materials. If any of those suspected failings is true, CSUN absolutely was within its rights to terminate for cause, and not simply allow his contract to terminate without renewal, as Kevin Brown elsewhere claims in comments here. The type of position Armitage held Hurd also says is definitely within the class of "at will" employment, meaning CSUN could terminate Armitage at any time for any reason, or no reason.

Here is Hurd's short evaluation of the claims made in the published paper:

"The age of dinosaur bone is based on the formation it is recovered from and not the condition of the bone. There was no competent stratigraphic analysis of these fossils to associate any radiometric data and the recovered material. (Armitage also denies elsewhere the validity of all radiometric dates). The fact is that the fossil was found in a shallow secondary deposit. It was cracked and open to the environment. It was observed to have rootlets growing through it! None of the reasonable tests for the age of the material were performed (especially amino acid racemization analysis if as I suspect the "soft tissue" is recent plant and microorganisms). Armitage and Anderson soaked chunks from the horn core in Glutaraldehyde which is a cross-linking and tanning agent. In short, they made plastic out of any bacteria, fungi, or any other organic sludge on the bone. The attempted to demineralize other samples with sodium EDTA was incomplete. There are other problems as well."

Because Armitage used his CSUN affiliation for publication, any faults in the published work also reflect on his institution. Which if the problems are as basic and rife as Dr. Hurd indicates they are and if CSUN was not in the approval cycle for the manuscript, it would open a whole different set of reasons that Armitage could have been fired for cause. (If CSUN cleared the publication, then arguably none of those would apply... caveat emptor. It still wouldn't necessarily absolve Armitage concerning claims of improper or unauthorized use of time, materials, and equipment, but it would likely seal off any claims based on damage to institutional reputation if the institution had the opportunity to protect its reputation and muffed it.)

Apparently Nature.com prefers the comments from creationists over mine. I have been published by Nature which I am sure has not been done by the creationists, or the IT tech managing this website. But, I am banned?

Why? I know this will not be seen in public. So, before you press "delete" tell me what has motivated you from blocking an internationally recognized expert in creationism and science. My email is garyhurd@cox.net

Do the secretaries at CSUN have the "right" to spend their days writing novels? Can the grounds keepers use university equipment for their own gardening business? Frankly, Bob a faculty member is not the authority about who has a "right" to use university facilities for their private benefit. If there was a faculty member that was an unacknowledged sponsor for this crappy work they should come forward immediately before the university is forced to spend more thousands in a legal defense.

If you read the photo captions there are hints about which equipment was used. The same as found in the CSUN facility. Reading the legal complaint also indicated that the work was done at CSUN.

--------------"Science is the horse that pulls the cart of philosophy."

Do the secretaries at CSUN have the "right" to spend their days writing novels? Can the grounds keepers use university equipment for their own gardening business? Frankly, Bob a faculty member is not the authority about who has a "right" to use university facilities for their private benefit. If there was a faculty member that was an unacknowledged sponsor for this crappy work they should come forward immediately before the university is forced to spend more thousands in a legal defense.

The work was not just for private benefit - Armitage used his CSUN address on the paper. And if faculty members who were microscopists thought it was OK for Armitage to use their equipment, then frankly I think we should assume that the university thought it was OK.

I don't get your point about the university spending more in legal expenses. Who would sue?

Overall, I think this is a poor line of argument to take. Whatever you may think of CSUN's attitude towards Armitage using their equipment, it's clear that the faculty who used the microscopes thought that this work would be OK for him to do with their equipment.

--------------It is fun to dip into the various threads to watch cluelessness at work in the hands of the confident exponent. - Soapy Sam (so say we all)

They, CSUN, are being sued. If your faculty friends think that it was just dandy that Armitage published crap, and used unfunded public resources (IE stole), they should step up and insist that he be reinstated. They can say that anybody in any position can do anything they like. They can say that they were the secret reviewers and sponsors of the "research" and then there will be no law suit.

Tell your pals to stop being such cowards. They should publicly affirm Armitage immediately.

Edited by Dr.GH on Nov. 07 2014,16:54

--------------"Science is the horse that pulls the cart of philosophy."